IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v148y2023ics1389934122002155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Regmi, Arun
  • Kreye, Melissa M.
  • Kreye, Jesse K.

Abstract

Prescribed burning is important for the ecological health of fire-dependent forests, however, there is little economic research examining landowner preferences for living with fire in the age of the Anthropocene. To understand the value of reintroducing fire on the landscape we assessed forest owner willingness to pay (WTP) for various prescribed fire programs in Pennsylvania, where natural fire occurs infrequently. Survey responses were collected from 243 forest owners using Likert scales and choice experiment questions resulting in a 44% response rate. Most respondents were classified as having limited experience with prescribed fire, but many also had low risk perceptions about prescribed fire and high trust in prescribed fire implementors. A majority (66%) elected to enroll in at least one of 16 proposed burn programs and almost a quarter of landowners were willing to pay up to $200 per acre. Using mixed logistic regression methods, mean WTP was estimated to range from $11 to $19 per acre, but varied significantly under different program alternatives. Respondents overall preferred programs that helped maintain ecosystem health and biodiversity, and offered cost-share, reduced liability, and access to burn bosses. Demographic characteristics were also important predictors of enrollment (i.e., income level, age, and involvement in assistance programs). We conclude that forest owners in Pennsylvania see prescribed fire as potentially helping them meet priority management objectives and supporting cultural values about forest stewardship. Technical and financial assistance for forest owners will be important for expanding the use of prescribed fire in Pennsylvania.

Suggested Citation

  • Regmi, Arun & Kreye, Melissa M. & Kreye, Jesse K., 2023. "Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:148:y:2023:i:c:s1389934122002155
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122002155
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102902?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomis, John B. & Le Trong Hung & González-Cabán, Armando, 2009. "Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 155-160, May.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    5. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    6. Kaval, Pamela & Loomis, John & Seidl, Andy, 2007. "Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 928-937, May.
    7. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Ober, Holly K., 2018. "Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 254-264.
    8. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    11. Shrestha, Anusha & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Roberts, Scott D. & Gordon, Jason S. & Adhikari, Ram K., 2021. "Nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to pay for prescribed burning to lower wildfire hazards," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    12. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    13. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    14. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    15. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    16. Stuart, William B. & Grace, Laura A. & Grala, Robert K., 2010. "Returns to scale in the Eastern United States logging industry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 451-456, July.
    17. Jonathan Yoder & Marcia Tilley & David Engle & Samuel Fuhlendorf, 2003. "Economics and Prescribed Fire Law in the United States," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 218-233.
    18. Jonathan Yoder & Marcia Tilley & David Engle & Samuel Fuhlendorf, 2003. "Economics and Prescribed Fire Law in the United States," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 218-233.
    19. John B. Loomis & Lucas S. Bair & Armando González-Cabán, 2002. "Language-Related Differences in a Contingent Valuation Study: English Versus Spanish," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1091-1102.
    20. Melissa M. Kreye & Elizabeth F. Pienaar & José R. Soto & Damian C. Adams, 2017. "Creating Voluntary Payment Programs: Effective Program Design and Ranchers’ Willingness to Conserve Florida Panther Habitat," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(3), pages 459-480.
    21. George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
    22. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    2. Berget, Carolina & Mook, Anne & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2024. "Self-efficacy toward prescribed burning among female and male family forest landowners in Georgia, US," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Shrestha, Anusha & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Roberts, Scott D. & Gordon, Jason S. & Adhikari, Ram K., 2021. "Nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to pay for prescribed burning to lower wildfire hazards," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    6. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    7. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Hanna Ihli & Ronja Seegers & Etti Winter & Brian Chiputwa & Anja Gassner, 2022. "Preferences for tree fruit market attributes among smallholder farmers in Eastern Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 5-21, January.
    9. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    10. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Eliott, Martyn G. & Venn, Tyron J. & Lewis, Tom & Farrar, Michael & Srivastava, Sanjeev K., 2021. "A prescribed fire cost model for public lands in south-east Queensland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    13. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    14. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    15. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    16. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    17. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    18. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    19. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    20. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:148:y:2023:i:c:s1389934122002155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.